Feminist assaults Gavin McInnes and Milo Yiannopolous, brags about it on Twitter
Right-wing media personalities and provocateurs Milo Yiannopolous and Gavin McInnes had water thrown at them by a feminist in Washington, D.C. Thursday.
The situation made a splash throughout Twitter due to the culprit’s brash admittance to the attack online. As Yiannopolous and McInnes ate at The Alibi restaurant in DC’s east end, one patron seated just a few tables over decided to livetweet the moment leading up to the attack.
“I am eating lunch 2 tables away from m*lo and g*vin mcg*nnis what do I do I’m not fucking kidding,” tweeted @notfromsplash, using asterisks to avoid having to type out their names.
Though @notfromsplash has since deleted the tweets and made her Twitter account private, screenshots of the posts give an accurate timeline of what unfolded.
After tweeting about how she was shaking uncontrollably in anger, Madison took it upon herself to dump two glasses of water on them.
A tweet from Ryan Katsu Rivera, the bird nest-haired sidekick of McInnes on his Freespeech.tv show Get Off My Lawn, indicated in a reply to Madison that she had been “drenched in Guinness” in retaliation to the attack.
“A grumpy feminist poured drinks on us, we managed to get her back,” said McInnes in a video posted to Twitter moments after the attack.
The attack aligns with divisive rhetoric being spouted in U.S. politics since the 2016 election. Last year, California Democrat Maxine Waters encouraged her supporters to publicly confront and harass members of the Trump administration, as well as their supporters.
“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,” said Waters at a protest rally in Los Angeles.
When a panel of women all seem to be in agreement about the necessity of killing men on prime-time TV, you start to wonder what’s happening to our culture. On November 5, Australia’s public service broadcaster ABC hosted a panel of five women, plus its female presenter, on its popular Q & A programme. The programme has hosted many international stars in the past, such as Jordan Peterson, and this time, the star of the show—if that’s the correct term—was Mona Eltahawy, an intersectional feminist who promotes violence in order to “smash the patriarchy,” and dismissed Barack Obama as “part of the system” when he called for civility among activists.
I want patriarchy to fear feminism. White women accept crumbs from patriarchy because they allow their whiteness to trump their gender. But at the end of the day, even those white women have to recognise that nothing protects them from patriarchy. Nothing! For me, as a feminist, the most important thing for me is to destroy the patriarchy. (…) How long must we wait for men and boys to stop murdering us, to stop beating us, and to stop raping us? How many rapists must we kill until men stop raping us? … I want women themselves … How many rapists must we kill until men stop raping us?
Eltahawy is an Egyptian-American feminist, whose work has helped put the oppressive, patriarchal Egyptian regime on the map. She’s bravely protested women’s rights in an Islamic country which admittedly does not offer women the same rights or opportunities as societies in the West. In her hatred for oppression, she has forgotten that it’s not “men” or the allusive “patriarchy” that is to blame for all that is bad in the world. In a society which allows an all-female panel to rant about men for half an hour straight, where everything and everyone from capitalism, colonialism, and Trump, to Australia’s prime minister Scott Morrison, received a good bashing, it rather proves the point that it’s become acceptable to be a misandrist and that women aren’t the silent victims.
She’s like a broken record who thinks there’s one, evil cause for everything, which you might expect from a teenage activist, but not from a 52-year-old woman. “I’m talking about the white supremacist, capitalist, imperialist patriarchy,” she added and referred to American feminist bell hooks (yes, it’s spelled like that, hooks didn’t agree with the colonialist, English rules of grammar) for good measure. When asked about what positive masculinity looked like, she shouted: “I have no fucking idea!”
Obama’s words may have hit a nerve, as it touched on Eltahawy’s own, simplistic message. “This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically woke and all that stuff, you should get over that quickly,” he said last Tuesday while speaking at the Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago. “The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws.” This nuanced worldview doesn’t suit Eltahawy and the other feminists on the panel’s narrative. Men—or patriarchy, as if that makes it sound better—are the enemy, particularly the white, cisgender, middle-aged kind. Those are of course the worst, for having dared oppress and colonize and plunder all these years, according to the intersectionalists. The fact that it’s not so easy to divide people into “good” and “bad,” as Obama points out, must be annoying for purists like Eltahawy to have to listen to. Her response was total condemnation:
I completely and utterly disagree with Barack Obama. I go online exactly to tell people to fuck off when they attack me. This idea of respectability, this idea of civility, this idea of unity, all of these words….decorum. Who invented those words? Those words were invented by white men, for the benefit of other white men, in systems of institutions that were always designed to be for white men. And they weren’t designed for women like you or me, people of colour, and gender diverse people. They never imagined us in those spaces, and we show up and we just ruin it for them. (…)Barack Obama was part of the system and remains part of the system. I also disagree with his wife when she says “when they go low, we go high.” No, I fucking don’t. If you go low I’m going to come for you. I don’t have the luxury or the privilege to sit there and be civil to people who do not acknowledge my full humanity.
It’s ironic when a feminist fails to acknowledge another woman by name, and instead refers to her as someone’s wife, but I’ll let that pass. Eltahawy again shows that her outlook is so steeped in intersectionality it’s reached levels that are on par with conspiracy theories. To attribute a concept like “civility” to skin colour is also racist and shows her knowledge of different cultures is limited, and she’s inadvertently agreeing with white supremacists who claim other cultures are savage and less developed.
Although no men were invited on the show, Eltahawy was surrounded by a somewhat diverse looking group of women: Jess Hill, author of See What You Made Me Do: Power, Control and Domestic Abuse; Nayuka Gorrie, an essayist and screenwriter who describes herself as Kurnai/Gunai, Gunditjmara, Wiradjuri and Yorta Yorta, for simplicity’s sake; Ashton Applewhite, an American anti-ageism campaigner; and Hana Assafiri, businesswoman and “Social Change Agent”; and the host, Fran Kelly. Kelly lacked the spine to question much, if any, of what was spouted.
The viewpoint diversity was utterly lacking, and naturally, Eltahawy’s glorification of violence wasn’t met with opposition. Another of the panellists justified her call to violence by using the suffragettes as an example, saying they had been “fighting for their lives” and were only stopped by the First World War. The fact that most women would never want to support mass killing of their brothers, fathers and husbands didn’t seem to cross their minds.
Some people were impressed, however. An article on SBS by Saman Shad found the programme “refreshing”: “It’s not often we get to see a prime-time offering of smart, accomplished and angry women on our screens but that’s exactly what we got” Shad said. “Women are angry because things are unfair. Maybe sometimes women have to lose our minds a little to get the message across.”
Or maybe their points are completely lost and people are turned off by swearing, shouting and showing contempt for half the population. Just as not all men are misogynistic, capitalist oppressors, not all women are raging and wallowing in victimhood. Many of us get along just fine with the opposite sex, and appreciate how society has moved towards equality without having to go on killing sprees, but rather by men and women cooperating.
Perhaps ABC finds this sort of programme, which only presents one side of the argument, totally acceptable. Perhaps it thinks that intersectional feminism is something all women subscribe to (they don’t). Perhaps it is happy to spend Australian taxpayers’ money on propaganda. But as a public service broadcaster, this programme didn’t achieve the balance that it should be aiming for in order to be taken seriously.
Toronto City Councillors voted 20-1 in support of a review of policies governing community spaces in the city, following a large protest at Toronto Public Library’s Palmerston branch over feminist Meghan Murphy’s controversial talk on “Gender Identity: What does it mean for society, the law and women?”
The review was proposed by Councilor Kristyn Wong-Tam and will involve the consultation of LGBTQ+ stakeholders, many of whom were aghast at the Toronto Public Library’s pro-free speech stance.
Councilors will now investigate whether third party use of the city’s community spaces are in line and uphold the city’s policies supporting equity, diversity, and human rights, as well as those polices against discriminatory behaviour and speech.
Only one councillor present voted against the review, Stephen Holyday, who believes in “respect[ing] the autonomy of the library board to create its own policies and doesn’t like to see the council “wading into this.”
Ostensibly, Murphy’s event garnered more outrage than support, with hundreds coming to condemn Murphy for her opinion that “men cannot be women, even if they identify as trans”. At the event, Murphy said that she was astounded that so many came out to oppose that stance, “as if a strong majority of the population doesn’t agree with it.”
“Pride Toronto strongly opposes the Toronto Public Library’s decision to host and support an event with guest speaker Meghan Murphy to take place in a publicly funded space,” an open letter from Pride Toronto reads.
“It is well known Meghan Murphy asserts publicly and repeatedly that Trans women cannot be women and will always be men. This is a denial of the lives, experiences and identities of Trans people. It is a crude, hateful and hurtful assertion…”
They go on to deny the validity of Murphy’s concerns, primarily that as Trans rights are propagated, they will begin to infringe upon the rights of biological women—such as the right to women’s only bathrooms and sports. Pride Toronto responded by saying that, looking through an intersectional lens, this is simply not the case, as if Trans women, being real women, win more rights, then so do biological women by extension.
Other notable detractors of the Library were Fay and Fluffy, two drag queen readers of “Fay and Fluffy’s Storytime”, who have chosen to terminate their relationship with the Library.
With the motion to review policies surrounding community spaces, free speech, and hate speech, it is likely that this event will be the last time that the Toronto Public Library can come out unambiguously in favour of promoting free speech.
“As a public library and public institution, we have an obligation to protect free speech. When Toronto Public Library (TPL) makes meeting rooms available to the public we serve, we need to make them available to all on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use,” wrote the Toronto Public Library in a statement on October 15.
The Post Millennial interviewed Murphy last month to ask what she thought of all the controversy following her ban from Twitter and similar outrage she generated for speaking at an event in Vancouver.
In the interview, Murphy says that, in many ways, she depends on social media as a self-employed writer and speaker, and that her banning, as well as the controversy she generated, came as a total shock.
Murphy says that she didn’t realize any of her views were hateful or offensive, or even controversial, until she had been banned on Twitter. However, due to changes in Twitter’s terms of service, which were updated to include a policy on misgendering, Murphy’s trans-exclusionary feminist stance that only biological women are real women was supposedly sufficient for removing her account.
Although Lindsay Shepherd was banned for the same reason, Twitter reversed its decision in that case.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to create a gender-balanced cabinet when sworn in on Nov. 20 at a press conference at the National Press Theatre in Ottawa on Wednesday.
At the beginning of his first term in 2015, Trudeau made the creation of a gender-neutral cabinet a staple action of his government— much to the acclaim of domestic and international media. That’s when he said the popular phrase when ask why he did it: “Because it’s 2015.”
Despite the 50-50 ratio cabinet, through the SNC-Lavalin affair two women were lost from it. Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Phillpott resigned in protest to the alleged judicial interference of Trudeau and his aides. Trudeau eventually booted Philpott and Wilson-Raybould out of the Liberal caucus.
This action led to criticism of Trudeau’s supposedly phony feminism, where women are tools in the political game, rather than vital parts of government. Furthermore, Trudeau has been criticized by other female MP’s, who have accused Trudeau of being aggressive and dismissive towards women.
At the press conference on Wednesday, the prime minister ruled out a formal coalition with any other party. Instead, Trudeau hopes to create a voting pact with one of the minority, left-leaning parties.
Despite the threat of separatism, Trudeau said it was possible to work with the Bloc Quebecois to advance progressive goals.
“We are a fiercely federalist party, and for us the unity of the country will always be a priority, but there are issues on which – like climate change – on which all Quebeckers and many Canadians agree,” the prime minister told reporters.
“On these issues like that, I would be very, very happy to be able to work with the Bloc Québécois.”
Trudeau’s intention of not forming a coalition may also prove to be controversial. By doing this, the Liberal government will be subject to a vote of no confidence at any time (depending on the voting pact), or may have to rely on the Bloc Quebecois’ support for certain legislation— a worrying proposal English Canadians.
The voting pacts are yet to be seen and it is unlikely that the terms of these agreements will be released to the general public. Nevertheless, a progressive voting pact will bring some short-term stability to Canada. The long-term effects, however, are uncertain.
The most recent DART & Maru/Blue Voice Canada Poll shows that only one quarter (24 percent) of Canadian women believe Prime Minister Justin Trudeau when he says he is a feminist.
Regarding their methodology, those who conducted the survey write, “The survey was conducted among 753 randomly selected Canadian adult women who are members of Maru/Blue’s Online panel on September 18, 2019… The results have been weighted by education, age, gender, and region to match the population, according to Census data. This is to ensure the sample is representative of the entire adult population of Canada.”
Of those surveyed, 63 percent say they “don’t feel better off than they did four years ago despite the fact a majority (54%) believe the Prime Minister and his government have done a good job in creating better opportunities for women in all aspects of their lives.
Those who believed that they were not better off were most likely to come from Alberta, Manitoba, or Saskatchewan.
Despite labelling himself a feminist during his first campaign all the way through his second, only 24 percent say they believe him, 38 percent think he’s lying, and 37 percent aren’t sure.
Of those who believe Trudeau’s claim that he is a feminist, 27 percent come from British Columbia and Ontario at 27 percent and 26 percent respectively.
Age was not a factor, either. Regardless of age, women who believed Trudeau’s feminist claim did so at a rate of between 27-22 percent, with older women’s belief being slightly less.
The women who were most likely to disbelieve that Trudeau is a legitimate feminist come from Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan at 54 percent for the former province and 52 percent for the latter two provinces.
Age did make a difference, however, for people who flat out disbelieved the Prime Minister’s claim. Older women disbelieved his claim at a rate of 45 percent (almost half), while younger women (age 18-34) disbelieved his claim with less fervour (29 percent).
The study also found that socioeconomic factors play a role in how likely women are to believe whether Trudeau’s feminist claim is true. Those from more affluent and more educated households are far more likely to believe Trudeau compared to those from the middle or lower class.
Furthermore, according to DART & Maru/Blue Voice Canada, those between 18-34 were far more likely to feel better off (44 percent), while those 34-55 only felt less well of (38 percent, and those over 55 felt the worst about their status (31 percent).